The purpose of this meeting is to determine the responsiveness and responsibility of the proposing vendors. Only those vendors that have been determined by the Evaluation Committee today to be both responsive and responsible to the solicitation requirements may proceed to the final Evaluation Committee meeting for presentation and ranking. This meeting is being held through Microsoft Teams. Some representatives from the county are physically here in Room 302 of the Governmental Center Building, located at 115 South Andrews Avenue in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Attendees, please ensure that your microphones on your devices are muted. Recordings of this meeting and all information reviewed by the Evaluation Committee as part of the evaluation process will be available on the Purchasing Division's website under the RLI slash RFP repository. Attendance for this meeting will be recorded in two ways. The Purchasing Agent will record attendance of county staff physically here in Room 302. All virtual attendees, including county staff, please use the QR code or the link provided in the chat to complete the sign-in sheet. We have a quorum present with the following Evaluation Committee members. Committee members, please say present after your names are called. Alan Wilson, Director, Human Resources Division, Finance and Administrative Services Department. Present. Kristen Bishop, Assistant Director, Consumer Protection Division, Resilient and Environment Department. Present. Thank you. Brian Lodigan, Assistant General Manager, Bus Operations and Transportation Department. Present. Thank you. The following county staff are assigned to this project. From the Human Resources Division, Esther Mitchell, the Project Manager. From the Purchasing Division, Desirene Lascott, Purchasing Agent. From the County Attorney's Office, Fernando A., Sandy Steed and... Ricardo Abraham. Thank you. From the Office of Economic and Small Business Development, Darnell Kimbrell. From the Risk Management Division, Kunil Pinal. And from the Enterprise Technology Services Division, Melinda Henderson. The Kona silence has been in effect since the solicitation advertisement. Potential vendors are prohibited from discussing the solicitation with Commissioner's Office, County Staff, or a member of the Evaluation Committee. The Kona silence terminates when the awarding authority takes action, which ends the solicitation. During the Kona silence, inquiries regarding the solicitation should be directed to the Project Manager or the Director of Purchasing and or his designate. Also, vendors may communicate with representatives from the Office of Economic and Small Business Development at any time regarding the solicitation, small business enterprise, or county business enterprise participation. The Summary of Vendor Rights regarding Barra County Competitive Solicitation has been provided to all proposing vendors. It is the responsibility of the Evaluation Committee to review the vendor submittals to ensure they are following the solicitation requirements and evaluate submittals to make a recommendation to award a contract. Each Evaluation Committee member was appointed by the County Administrator to serve on this Committee based on their experience. The Evaluation Committee members are responsible for following the County's established committee procedures to select vendors which provide the services that are in the best interest of the County. At the discretion of the Board, Evaluation Committee members may be requested to substantiate their recommendation and discuss the review of their submittals. In accordance with Barra County Procurement Code, all Committee members shall be free of conflicts of interest as provided by Part 3, Chapter 112 of the Florida Statute, and the Barra County Employee Code of Ethics. All Committee members submitted the required Barra County Disclosure Forms and responded that they can be free and impartial to all vendors. At this time, the purchasing agent will report on the findings on the responsibility and responsibility and the exceptions taken to the County's terms and conditions. Thank you, Madam Facilitator. As previously stated, four proposals were received in response to the solicitation. The proposals are from Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, DBA MetLife, Standard Insurance Company, UNAM Life Insurance Company of America, and U.S. Able Life. The solicitation had four responsiveness requirements involving compliance. Criminal history screening practices certification, domestic partnership act certification, lobbyist registration certification, and pricing requirements. All vendors are being recommended to be evaluated as responsive to all the responsiveness requirements. In the area of responsibility, the solicitation did not contain a small business reserve or county business enterprise school requirement. The solicitation has six other areas of responsibility requirements. Disclosure of affiliated entities, vendor security questionnaire requirements, foreign country of concern requirements, evidence, proof of insurance, litigation history, and certificate of authority through the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation. The requirement for affiliated entities is for the proposals to disclose the names and addresses of affiliated entities of the vendor's principles over the last five years that have acted as a prime vendor with the county. All four vendors provided the required documentation and have met the affiliated entities requirements. The enterprise technology services vendor security questionnaire is for vendors to provide the completed form at the time of submittal or by the county's requested deadline. All four vendors provided the required documentation and have met the vendor security questionnaire requirements. The requirement for insurance is to provide documentation and have met the foreign country of concern attestation requirement. The requirement for insurance is to provide documentation showing that the vendor currently has in place or can have the insurance in place prior to award. All four vendors provided the required documentation and have met the insurance requirements. Refer to the insurance review memorandum for additional information. The requirement for litigation history is for the disclosure of three years of litigation history. Two out of the four vendors provided the required documentation and have met the requirement of disclosure of three years of litigation history. The county attorney's office was unable to verify material case history for the following two vendors. Unum Life Insurance Company of America and U.S. Able Life. Additionally, none of the vendors are involved in litigation with Colorado County. Refer to the litigation review memorandum for additional information. The requirement for certificate authority is for the vendors to provide proof of a current and valid certificate of authority as a life and health insurer through the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation floor. All four vendors provided the required documentation and have met the certificate of authority requirements. The solicitation requires proposals to state whether they accept Broad County standard terms and conditions or if they do not accept them to define which contract provisions they cannot accept. All four vendors have taken exception to Broad County standard terms and conditions. The specific exceptions taken by vendors seem to be both responsible and responsible will be addressed prior to presentations at the final evaluation meeting. This completes purchasing's report and is for the consideration of the evaluation committee. Thank you. Madam Faciliter. Thank you. The next order of business is to determine the responsiveness of the vendor submittal as defined in the position of committee members. Is there any discussion regarding the determination of responsiveness of the vendor submittals? Hearing none, may I have a motion with respect to the responsiveness of the vendor submittals? Committee members, please state your name, then your motion. Mr. Bishop, I make a motion to find all vendors as responsive to the responsiveness requirements of the RFP. Thank you. May I have a second? Second. Your name? Alan Wilson, second. Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. The next order of business is the determination of the responsibility of the vendors as defined in the procurement code. Committee members, is there any discussion regarding the determination of responsibility of the vendors? Just a, Alan Wilson, just a clarification. So, um, as I understand it from reviewing the documentation, um, two that did not provide the criminal... Disclosure of litigation? Oh, yeah. Disclosure of litigation. Yeah. Was that clarified at any point or submitted before today? What section? Disclosure of litigation? Section 5 under... So, so, so, yeah, I, I do believe... Can you get in for the record, please? So, Fernando, I'm just asking you with county attorney's office. I believe, uh... State? Yeah, we have Sandy, State, on, uh, on the line. Uh, Sandy, did you want to, um, respond to the question? Uh, Alan Wilson. Uh, the question had to do with the, the two, um, the two vendors that did not provide the criminal, um, sorry, litigation history requirement. So, there was no way for vendors to, just being in a position to address purchasing? Yes, we reached out to the vendors, and they provided us with statements about reaching out to their parent company, and also their, um, 10, Q10 filing, um, to find material cases there. And what was the finding? Or did, they didn't provide any additional information? No. Did any of the vendors refer to, like, their SEC filings? Just the Q10 filing. Okay, and do you want to explain what a Q10 filing is? That's for, uh, I think, the SEC filing? Yeah. So, uh, so, uh, I, I believe the, all the EC members have a copy of the litigation review memorandum from Sandy, State. It should have been, uh, included as, as an attachment. Um, and the statements from, from the two companies, they are included, um, in, uh, as additional information in the litigation, uh, history, uh, form. So, I, I don't know if the EC members have had an opportunity to review it. Maybe we can read the statements from the two firms into the record, just to give some context. For Unum Life Insurance Company of America, they provided a statement, in the normal course of business, Unum may occasionally be involved in litigation, and a small number of lawsuits are currently pending. Both of our cases involve competing beneficiaries, benefit amounts, or eligibility for coverage. An overview of, uh, however, I stated in a purchasing report, there is no litigation with Burrard County. For both. For both. For both. I just want to state that out. An overview of litigation can be found in our most recent 10-Q filing with the SEC, um, and they provided the website for us to obtain that information. And, and that's, the, the, the SEC, yeah, obviously the security, um, and exchange, um, for U.S. Able Life, they provided a statement, and from time to time, U.S. Able Life is involved in litigation in the normal course of its activities as an insurance company. Currently, and in the prior three years, there have not been any pending actions that would prevent or impede U.S. Able Life's performance of the contract for which this request for proposal is submitted. If Burrard County requires more information, please contact an attorney in their legal department by writing, and they provided the address for us to write to their legal department. Mr. Mayor, can you just reach out? This is Ricardo Abraham, the county attorney's office. Just to, to be clear, um, questions were presented to these vendors to provide answers to, and these were their responses, and the objective here is to make sure whether or not the questions that were specifically provided for were, were provided in response to the questions. And, and also, the, the litigation requirement requires that the, the vendors disclose three years of their, that, that is what we're, we did not receive in order to do our verification. Yeah, and, and, and to just add on, on that, so, uh, all vendors are required to, uh, disclose what we refer to as material case history. The definition of a material case is defined in the instructions of vendors. It's extremely broad. It could include things like, uh, uh, you know, slip and fall cases, automobile negligence, uh, premise liability, a whole, basically, every, many types of cases under, uh, under the sun. And so the firms get, well, we have a litigation disclosure form, and for each case, they're supposed to give the name of the plaintiff, the defendant, what's the, what's, what does the case involve? What's the status of the case? Has there been a final resolution? Things of that nature. Sometimes in solicitations where you have national firms, you know, they'll just refer to an SEC filing or just say, hey, we're a national firm. They could have thousands of cases. Uh, and so sometimes they say, well, we cannot, you know, provide that information. So, um, occasionally that does happen. Uh, you know, it's, it's within the discretion of the evaluation committee to, you know, you could still find the firm, uh, uh, responsible, notwithstanding the fact that they didn't, uh, you know, technically give details for every single case that may or may not be a material case. All right. Thank you for that. Can I ask a question then? Brian, Brian Lonergan. Um, so it looks like the determination was that it was undeterminable or undetermined from, from two of the vendors? And, and, yeah. Uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, finish his question. Yes. Go ahead. So, so my question essentially is does, does that mean we were unable to determine the cases based on the information submitted? It's just being a link or whatever information is provided by each vendor. Sandy, do you want to provide some clarification there? There was no case disclosed for us to verify. Continue, Sandy. In the vendor, we've been filing overviews that there are, so it's not that there are none that are, so I can't. Thank you, Sandy. Okay. Yes. And then, oh, Alan Wilson, regarding the reference checks, we were also unable to verify the ones for Unum Life Insurance. Right. Unum, they did not provide any references. Okay. Alan Wilson, even after provided the supplemental opportunity to do so. All right. Okay. Motion? Okay. Alan Wilson, I would like to make a motion to find Unum Life Insurance as non-responsible for, oops, sorry. I would like to, I would like to make a motion, I would like to make a motion to find Unum non-responsible. Do the responsibility first. All right. And we can list the names. Okay. So you can, there's a, I don't know what your pages are. Unpage 8. Second section. Let's do that one first. Are you changing the all? Correct. And we're listing the names. Good. Go ahead. State your name again for the record and then your motion. Thank you. The vendor's names are listed right below that in a chart for you. Yes. I would like to make a motion to find Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Standard Insurance Company, and Usable Life Insurance Company as responsible. May I have a second? Brian Lonegan, second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Then we'll proceed with the next motion. Alan Wilson, I would like to make a motion to find Unum Life Insurance Company as non-responsible to the responsibility requirements of the RFP. May I have a second? Kristen Bishop, I second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. The following vendors have been determined to be both responsive and responsible. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, DBA MetLife, Standard Insurance Company, and Usable Life. May I have a motion to accept the named vendors to proceed to final evaluation and ranking? Say your name, then your motion. Brian Lonegan. Brian Lonegan, I'd like to make a motion to find Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Standard Insurance Company, and Usable Life as... To proceed. So let me ask for the motion again. Sure. I have a motion to accept the named vendors, which are Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, DBA MetLife, Standard Insurance Company, and Usable Life to proceed to final evaluation scoring and ranking. Brian Lonegan, I would like to make a motion for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Standard and Usable Life to proceed to final evaluation and ranking. May I have a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. The final evaluation committee meeting will be held on Monday, September 22, 2022, at 1 p.m., which includes vendor presentation. Members and project managers, are there any topics or questions you would like the vendors to include in their presentation? Yes. When acknowledged, please state your name, then your questions or topics. I'll start with Alan. No. Nothing. Kristen. Brian. Project manager team. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Esther Mitchell, and I would like for the vendors to present the following topics. We would like to see a demonstration of their employer's site so that we can see their reporting, their claim status, and things of that nature. We would also like to have a demonstration of the employee portal so that we can see what kind of documentation employees would have available to them, their claim status, whether they can file the claim online or not, and whatever else is available for the employees. Also, I would like for the vendors to explain their maximum benefit period, and last but not least, I'd like for the vendors to state their coordination of benefits when it comes to life insurance and a waiver of premium. Welcome back to committee members. Anything you're thinking about? Thank you. The evaluation committee establishes a length of presentation. This does not include the unlimited question and answer period. Committee members, based on the list that the project manager has given, is there any discussion regarding the length of presentation? I would like to make... Oh, Alan Wilson. I would like to make a motion to set the length of presentation in 15 minutes. May I have a second? Kristen Bishop, I second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. At this time, the purchasing agent will use a random list generator to determine the order of presentation. This can be viewed on your screen. Thank you, Madam Facilitator. As I select the randomizer party, order of presentations are presented on your screen. The number one presenter, it's... Most. The first presenter will be Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, DBA MetLife. The second presenter will be U.S. Able Life. And your third presenter would be Standard Insurance Company. Thank you, Madam Facilitator. Thank you. Committee members, is there any other visits you need to discuss today? Hearing none, I'd like to thank all the vendors that responded to the solicitation. We appreciate your time and interest in doing visits with Burr County. The time is 2.29 p.m. This initial evaluation committee meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.